The smartest captain bursting with tactical knowledge can still lose a match or series for events over which he has no control
The smartest captain bursting with tactical knowledge can still lose a match or series for events over which he has no control
When a team does well, the captain doesn’t always get credit. But when it goes bad, the focus is on him – or he, as Mithali Raj is finding anew, and also England’s Joe Root after a loss in the West Indies.
When India returned in 2011 with 0-4 defeats against both England and Australia, guns were pointed at captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni. Thanks to the then Cricket Board President, Dhoni kept his job. The team has performed so well since then that when South Africa beat them recently, the whispers against skipper Virat Kohli became more conspicuous.
Kohli led in 68 Tests, Root led in 64. As former England captain Michael Atherton said, “There comes a time when a captain has nothing new to say…” Like artists and novelists, the wells of creativity run dry, and whatever Remains repetitive and routine.
The logic of ‘civilization’
It looks like Root is too good to be an international captain. This raises the question whether only indecent players make good captains? And what is the meaning of this word? That must be comical misogyny to captains? This is taking it too far.
New Zealand’s recent captains – the current world Test champions – have shown that captains can be decent men who lose nothing in their decency, and can also bring out hidden decency in their opponents. Think Brendon McCullum or Kane Williamson.
Captaincy is important in cricket, but it is difficult to measure. The smartest captain, bursting with tactical knowledge, can still lose a match or series for events over which he has no control. Injury to a key player, for example, or unexpected rain or a surprise bowling spell from an opponent.
The opposite is equally true. A clearly weak captain can win because luck favors him or a player who is on the verge of being dropped scores a century. If a captain is as good as his team – one of the clichés of the game – then the elements that make him a success are beyond his control anyway.
burden of prestige
Sometimes it is impossible to shake the reputation quickly stamped on a captain. Tiger Pataudi may or may not be a better captain than his successor Ajit Wadekar. But in the popular imagination – nurtured by the media of the time – the former was ‘great’ while the latter was ‘lucky’. this is unfair. But we have only win-loss parameters to judge the captain.
This differs from the manner in which players are evaluated by runs scored or wickets scored, without reference to whether these performances led to wins. The captain may alter the bowling or rearrange the field or batting order, but even if these contributed to the win, they would not be in their statistical charts, thus making the decision a subjective matter.
While ambiguity is a good basis for debate at bars or social gatherings, there is something unsatisfactory about subjectivity in a sport where statistics tell the rest of the story.
Do we captain too much, invest it with almost magical powers? Any senior player should be able to lead the team as he has experience. You can’t blame the fans for thinking that sometimes the best captains sit out of the game – in the media box! But not all players handle man management well, and it is often just as important as tactical information. The third element, luck, is important, which the best captains accept without any embarrassment.
Losing can become a habit
If nothing succeeds like success, there is nothing quite like failure. Losing can also become a habit, and when you lose five series in a row (as England did recently), something happens to the team. Players start taking defeat as natural and no team can accept defeat so much. The new captains bring new energy, a new way of working that can reverse a gloomy trend.
When chairman of selectors Vijay Merchant ended Pataudi’s rule with his casting vote, he explained that he had acted like the CEO of a company that was not making profits and changed manager in hopes of a change in fortunes. Gave. It worked, and India, who were not used to winning in those days, went on to win three series in a row.
We have no way of knowing what might have happened if Pataudi had led West Indies and England – this was a team he built a decade later.
Maybe modern captains have a sale date. Cricket is analyzed extensively, and just as the strengths and weaknesses of the batsmen and bowlers are worked out, so are the captains. Once the element of surprise is gone, it’s time to end the captaincy. A good custom, as Tennyson said (he was not talking about captaincy), can corrupt that world.